Returns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, the accounts connected to each one, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what state information is returned, going beyond the annotations to describe the output contents. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that is information-dense without redundancy. Every element serves to clarify the tool's purpose and output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value's content. It covers all critical aspects an agent needs to know: what is returned (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, tool counts). Sufficient for this simple informational tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies; the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource ('current toolkit state') with enumerated details (installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, catalog tool counts). This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like authenticate or connect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes clear it is for retrieving status information rather than performing actions, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Context is clear enough for an agent to select it when needing toolkit state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution, domain lookup, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. There is minor overlap between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions clarify the different concerns.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), a contextual object-action (protestos_nacional_consultar), and verb-noun combinations (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are mixed without a unified convention.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server is dominated by platform meta-tools with only one domain-specific tool, making the tool count feel unbalanced for a server named 'Protestos Nacional'.
The single protestos consultation tool covers basic lookup needs, but the domain surface is very thin with no additional operations like history, export, or batch queries. The meta-tools provide broader platform capabilities but do not fill domain-specific gaps.